Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#111

Post by xen2xen1 »

Ekaros wrote: post #77
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be so mindblowing. People are lazy and dumb, as much so as they're allowed to be. We're a year away from this tech being completely mainstream to the point where we'll find out what happens when an entire society at once stops trying to think/work because there's a machine to do it for them now.

Before it was handful of mad people with things like sovereign citizen and stupid instructions on Internet. But now it seems even trained folks will follow whatever something they have not verified says... Also I wonder how well the training data was cleaned from all potentially harmful stuff like for example the sovereign citizen ideas...

And I'm a French model..

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#112

Post by xen2xen1 »

filoleg wrote: post #72
lotsofpulp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> risk losing their BAR card. Did they risk it? Even after it being obvious the lawyer was lying and trying to cover up, and not acquiescing to their wrongdoing even after all of it, all they had to pay was $5k.

> all they had to pay was $5k. They still risk being disbarred (not just hypothetically, it might actually happen) + taking a massive hit to the reputation (their own + the firm). The latter one alone is a strong punishment, given how widely-publicized this incident was in the media. It cost the firm a lot of potential clients, and the lawyer might struggle with finding a decent position after the fact (given how muc…

Name change in 3..2..1..

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#113

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

hospitalJail wrote: post #13

I had someone run into basically the same issue with their dissertation. I went back into my texts since I had recommended them chatGPT. I screenshotted the part where I said: "You can't trust it for valid information" I even told him that everyone needs to be punished by incorrect information from ChatGPT once to really understand what its capable of. You need that traumatic event. Gosh, why can't people just listen…

> Gosh, why can't people just listen and accept other people's thoughts. Why must we learn individually?

If you've evolved from a species that is profoundly stupid, as a rule, then perhaps an adaptation/mutation that makes you mistrusting of that species advice is one that tends to propagate.

For every "don't use ChatGPT, it's unsafe", there's a "I talk to magical beings who tell me you're not allowed to eat good food and you should mutilate your genitals".

Statistically, refusing to learn from other people is probably the best bet.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#114

Post by wubbert »

jeroenhd wrote: post #46

LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…

[dead]

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#115

Post by xen2xen1 »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #98
BlakeSimpson wrote: post #9

It blows my mind that a lawyer would go through all the schooling and DEBT just to use ChatGPT and risk losing their BAR card. Sure, I see plenty of uses for ChatGPT in their field, but to not even check the output before submitting it is what blows my mind.

Everyone is piling onto you here, but another aspect is that many lawyers already don't do their own research, they use paralegals to do it for them. With that information I think it's less mind-blowing, they were simply assuming ChatGPT could do the work of a paralegal

I've worked with legal software professionally a few times, and kept thinking software won't replace lawyers, it'll replace paralegals. Not all, but a great deal of grunt work could be replaced with AI and good forms. Now if we could get them not to lie?

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#116

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #84
jeroenhd wrote: post #46

LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…

> They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? Well, no, they also have to right letters and attach the sanctions order, and the transcript of the sanctions hearing to: (1) their client in the…

I don’t the the absence of a formal disciplinary referral means much when the judge understands the amount of publicity from this is itself a referral.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#117

Post by ianhawes »

blindriver wrote: post #78

There are A LOT of VERY bad lawyers out there. I have a friend who used to be a federal judge for immigration, and he said that immigration lawyers are especially the worst, because families need their services desperately, and these lawyers will take their money and spend NO time on their cases. They show up to court and are figuring stuff out real time. He tore one lawyer a new asshole for doing exactly this for hi…

I work in the immigration space. Part of the problem is that because immigration is technically federal but operates almost entirely in administrative venues (i.e. USCIS and EOIR), immigration lawyers only need to be barred in their home state and do not generally need admission to a relevant federal court bar or appear pro hac vice to represent clients in immigration court or even to make an appearance in filings.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#118

Post by cwillu »

voytec wrote: post #106
pmoriarty wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They also have to write written apologies to their client, and all of the judges who were mentioned in their fake cases, with proof filed in the docket." They'll probably just have ChatGPT write their apologies for them.

Dear Client, As an AI language model...

You have been a bad lawyer.

I have been a good Bing.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#119

Post by jlarocco »

I wonder if this case was a setup for a lawsuit against OpenAI?

Given the marketing and the way Microsoft and Google were tripping over themselves to "catch up", the impression in the media and to the general public is that chat bots are a magic silver bullet for everything. Even a lot of tech people are unclear about exactly how these things work.

The case seems pretty clear: "They said it was artificial intelligence, but it wasn't very intelligent to make up cases. Look at the damages it's caused me..."

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#120

Post by olddustytrail »

stefan_ wrote: post #109
HumblyTossed wrote: post #36

Do they just not understand how ChatGPT works? Do they think it's a search engine?

Every other HN thread on ChatGPT: artificial general intelligence is near! Isn't this just the same thing as the brain? GPT4 is a game changer! This thread: do they not know what ChatGPT is? Did they not verify the output? How could they believe this? Just maybe when an army of grifters jumps on the next hottest AI thing to advance their careers that kind of bald-faced lying has consequences?

Can you genuinely not tell the difference between "this new technology is amazing" and "you should take everything this model says as gospel"?

Because if you can't, it's not the fault of "grifters"...

Post reply on HN